ORIGINAL: horribleives I find it hard to believe that every season of Breaking Bad or Homeland has been a calculated effort for the aforementioned two to begin their Hollywood careers.

To be fair that's not really what I'm saying. My initial point was that the two exist together and are very different. My three favourite films of 2012 to date could not be exist in any format other than cinema (Tabu, Holy Motors, The Master), while one might say the same of my favourite television shows. The point about TV creatives having aspirations of working in cinema was more to do with the sweeping remarks that EVERYTHING works better as television, which simply isn't true.

Fair enough but I don't think anyone actually said that. I do agree with your point about what Mark Cousins said though - there's nowt worse than people who complain about a lack of great films when they're not prepared to actually seek them out. It's like people who say there's no good music around, when what they mean is there's no good music in the charts or on the radio.

ORIGINAL: horribleives I find it hard to believe that every season of Breaking Bad or Homeland has been a calculated effort for the aforementioned two to begin their Hollywood careers.

To be fair that's not really what I'm saying. My initial point was that the two exist together and are very different. My three favourite films of 2012 to date could not be exist in any format other than cinema (Tabu, Holy Motors, The Master), while one might say the same of my favourite television shows. The point about TV creatives having aspirations of working in cinema was more to do with the sweeping remarks that EVERYTHING works better as television, which simply isn't true.

Fair enough but I don't think anyone actually said that. I do agree with your point about what Mark Cousins said though - there's nowt worse than people who complain about a lack of great films when they're not prepared to actually seek them out. It's like people who say there's no good music around, when what they mean is there's no good music in the charts or on the radio.

To be fair vad3r did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

TV right now is superior to films in every genre.

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

ORIGINAL: horribleives I find it hard to believe that every season of Breaking Bad or Homeland has been a calculated effort for the aforementioned two to begin their Hollywood careers.

To be fair that's not really what I'm saying. My initial point was that the two exist together and are very different. My three favourite films of 2012 to date could not be exist in any format other than cinema (Tabu, Holy Motors, The Master), while one might say the same of my favourite television shows. The point about TV creatives having aspirations of working in cinema was more to do with the sweeping remarks that EVERYTHING works better as television, which simply isn't true.

Fair enough but I don't think anyone actually said that. I do agree with your point about what Mark Cousins said though - there's nowt worse than people who complain about a lack of great films when they're not prepared to actually seek them out. It's like people who say there's no good music around, when what they mean is there's no good music in the charts or on the radio.

To be fair vad3r did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

TV right now is superior to films in every genre.

That's not a sweeping remark that 'everything works better as television', it's an opinion that at the minute there is more quality on TV than in film. (Yes, I really did just give vad3r the benefit of the doubt...)

That's not a sweeping remark that 'everything works better as television', it's an opinion that at the minute there is more quality on TV than in film. (Yes, I really did just give vad3r the benefit of the doubt...)

Yeah, it was those remarks that I was responding to actually. I took it's placing after my own rational post (post #26719) on the matter as a sign that reason was out of the window tbh.

And besides, he clarifies himself that your reading of his statement wasn't the intended one, when he pairs TV off against film quite literally ("TV right now is superior to films in every genre. Especially comedy and drama. No drama on film comes close to stuff like....." "TV in recent years has even been doing genre stuff better than film also"). He's very much comparing the quality of television when placed next to film.

ORIGINAL: horribleives I find it hard to believe that every season of Breaking Bad or Homeland has been a calculated effort for the aforementioned two to begin their Hollywood careers.

To be fair that's not really what I'm saying. My initial point was that the two exist together and are very different. My three favourite films of 2012 to date could not be exist in any format other than cinema (Tabu, Holy Motors, The Master), while one might say the same of my favourite television shows. The point about TV creatives having aspirations of working in cinema was more to do with the sweeping remarks that EVERYTHING works better as television, which simply isn't true.

Fair enough but I don't think anyone actually said that. I do agree with your point about what Mark Cousins said though - there's nowt worse than people who complain about a lack of great films when they're not prepared to actually seek them out. It's like people who say there's no good music around, when what they mean is there's no good music in the charts or on the radio.

To be fair vad3r did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

TV right now is superior to films in every genre.

That's not a sweeping remark that 'everything works better as television', it's an opinion that at the minute there is more quality on TV than in film. (Yes, I really did just give vad3r the benefit of the doubt...)

Which is completely true. I watch about 1 film a month right now, all my other viewing time is dedicated to TV series. There's so much quality out there if you know where to look.

That's not a sweeping remark that 'everything works better as television', it's an opinion that at the minute there is more quality on TV than in film. (Yes, I really did just give vad3r the benefit of the doubt...)

Yeah, it was those remarks that I was responding to actually. I took it's placing after my own rational post (post #26719) on the matter as a sign that reason was out of the window tbh.

And besides, he clarifies himself that your reading of his statement wasn't the intended one, when he pairs TV off against film quite literally ("TV right now is superior to films in every genre. Especially comedy and drama. No drama on film comes close to stuff like....." "TV in recent years has even been doing genre stuff better than film also"). He's very much comparing the quality of television when placed next to film.

Okay, I won't bang on about this anymore if it's annoying you (god knows there's enough annoyance in this thread) but...I still don't see anything in vad3r's posts saying 'EVERYTHING works better on television'. No-one's saying The Master would be better as a TV series. He's simply saying, in his opinion, there's more quality on TV than at the cinema. It's not a sweeping statement, it's a point of view. It's certainly far less of a sweeping statement than your belief that virtually everyone working in television lacks sincerity and is only there because they can't get film work. Seeing as I barely touched upon actors in previous posts, I'll add another name - Steve Buscemi. Someone who's worked on both sides of the camera in both mediums throughout his career. I can't see anything other than brilliant writing and characterisation that drew him to The Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire.

ORIGINAL: horribleives I find it hard to believe that every season of Breaking Bad or Homeland has been a calculated effort for the aforementioned two to begin their Hollywood careers.

To be fair that's not really what I'm saying. My initial point was that the two exist together and are very different. My three favourite films of 2012 to date could not be exist in any format other than cinema (Tabu, Holy Motors, The Master), while one might say the same of my favourite television shows. The point about TV creatives having aspirations of working in cinema was more to do with the sweeping remarks that EVERYTHING works better as television, which simply isn't true.

Fair enough but I don't think anyone actually said that. I do agree with your point about what Mark Cousins said though - there's nowt worse than people who complain about a lack of great films when they're not prepared to actually seek them out. It's like people who say there's no good music around, when what they mean is there's no good music in the charts or on the radio.

To be fair vad3r did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

TV right now is superior to films in every genre.

That's not a sweeping remark that 'everything works better as television', it's an opinion that at the minute there is more quality on TV than in film. (Yes, I really did just give vad3r the benefit of the doubt...)

Which is completely true. I watch about 1 film a month right now, all my other viewing time is dedicated to TV series. There's so much quality out there if you know where to look.

So, you watch 12 films per year year? What makes you feel as though you're qualified to comment on the general quality of the medium as a whole?

ORIGINAL: horribleives He's simply saying, in his opinion, there's more quality on TV than at the cinema. It's not a sweeping statement, it's a point of view.

I'm sorry, but it becomes a sweeping statement when the person holding the point of view readily admits to watching less than 15 films per year. What makes someone who doesn't watch films qualified to judge the quality of the films?

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives It's certainly far less of a sweeping statement than your belief that virtually everyone working in television lacks sincerity and is only there because they can't get film work.

Not really, given that I've provided examples that back up my line of thinking.

ORIGINAL: horribleives He's simply saying, in his opinion, there's more quality on TV than at the cinema. It's not a sweeping statement, it's a point of view.

I'm sorry, but it becomes a sweeping statement when the person holding the point of view readily admits to watching less than 15 films per year. What makes someone who doesn't watch films qualified to judge the quality of the films?

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives It's certainly far less of a sweeping statement than your belief that virtually everyone working in television lacks sincerity and is only there because they can't get film work.

Not really, given that I've provided examples that back up my line of thinking.

Which I did too. Obviously neither of us can say we're right as we don't know the likes of Armando Llanucci, Steve Buscemi or anyone else mentioned but equally I don't think the fact that they (or David Chase or Matthew Weiner) have directed movies (or plan to) is proof that they only did telly to get a leg-up. For the record, my line of thinking isn't 'telly is better than film' but rather disagreeing with you that everyone in telly is only there because they failed in film or to launch their film career. I referenced vad3r's post, not becuase I neccessarily agree with it but because that was the one you referred to as the 'sweeping generalisation' - you're totally right, someone who only watched one film a month isn't really qualified to comment on the state of cinema (I go to the pictures 4-6 times a month and watch about the same amount of new films on DVD and I wouldn't say I was qualified to either) and you're also correct that the two are completely different mediums and exist seperately. However, I think you're under-estimating the quality that exists in television by not acknowledging the many directors/writers/actors etrc who work in the medium because they actually want to.

Which is completely true. I watch about 1 film a month right now, all my other viewing time is dedicated to TV series. There's so much quality out there if you know where to look.

The same applies to film. If you put in a small bit of effort and seek stuff out, you will discover some amazing films.

_____________________________

Exactly six miles north of Skagg Mountain in the Valley of Pain, there lives an evil devilmonster. His name is Bingo Gas Station Motel Cheeseburger With A Side Of Aircraft Noise And You'll Be Gary Indiana.

Which is completely true. I watch about 1 film a month right now, all my other viewing time is dedicated to TV series. There's so much quality out there if you know where to look.

The same applies to film. If you put in a small bit of effort and seek stuff out, you will discover some amazing films.

Incredibly easy to find to. Just an easy internet search will find you a mountain of great films released the world over from small stuff like Metropolitan and Saftey Not Garaunteed, surprise hits like Cell 221 to big-budget things like Let the Bullets Fly.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978 There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

Yeah, that's real fine expensive gear you brought out here, Mr. Hooper.'Course I don't know what that bastard shark's gonna do with it-might eat it I suppose. Seen one eat a rockin' chair one time. Hey chieffy, next time you just ask me which line to pull

ironman is a dull superhero. Ironman is a crap film, in fact its the only superhero movie where the superhero's true identity is more interesting than the superhero. Jon Favreau is a bland director, please dont let him near star wars

ironman is a dull superhero. Ironman is a crap film, in fact its the only superhero movie where the superhero's true identity is more interesting than the superhero. Jon Favreau is a bland director, please dont let him near star wars

Can you distinguish between the superhero Ironman and the civilian Tony Stark. There's no difference between them that I can see. The only time that he battled anyone in the films that didn't know who he was (Asian Dawn* in the middle of the first film) it wouldn't have made a difference if they had of known who he was as they weren't in a position to threaten his personal life. Superman, Batman, and Spiderman are all distinct from their alter egos. Ironman is not.

I do agree about the film Ironman. Robert Downey Jr is entertaining in it, but that's all it has going for it..

I haven't seen an interesting Jon Favreau film. That said, [warning: I'm not a Star Wars fan] he'd probably have improved 5 of the Star Wars films to date. Odds are if he got Star Wars 7 he'd do a better job than Lucas.

ironman is a dull superhero. Ironman is a crap film, in fact its the only superhero movie where the superhero's true identity is more interesting than the superhero. Jon Favreau is a bland director, please dont let him near star wars

Can you distinguish between the superhero Ironman and the civilian Tony Stark. There's no difference between them that I can see. The only time that he battled anyone in the films that didn't know who he was (Asian Dawn* in the middle of the first film) it wouldn't have made a difference if they had of known who he was as they weren't in a position to threaten his personal life. Superman, Batman, and Spiderman are all distinct from their alter egos. Ironman is not.

I do agree about the film Ironman. Robert Downey Jr is entertaining in it, but that's all it has going for it..

I haven't seen an interesting Jon Favreau film. That said, [warning: I'm not a Star Wars fan] he'd probably have improved 5 of the Star Wars films to date. Odds are if he got Star Wars 7 he'd do a better job than Lucas.

That made me chuckle. Favreau directing Star Wars IV. That was a good one.

As to Ironman's 'worth' as a film, well, I feel I must disagree, respectfully. It was fun and did exactly what it sought out to do. What did you want? Black + white? Subtitles? 1000 yd stares? And why did it matter someone he was fighting didn't know who he was? Christ, hard to please or what.

My one would be The Raid; wasn't a bad film but felt like a couple of set-pieces thrown together with a few stable cliches. Maybe I had been expecting too much. Maybe I need to see it again. Maybe you guys should watch Ironman again?

_____________________________

Yeah, that's real fine expensive gear you brought out here, Mr. Hooper.'Course I don't know what that bastard shark's gonna do with it-might eat it I suppose. Seen one eat a rockin' chair one time. Hey chieffy, next time you just ask me which line to pull

Yes, I don't rate Ironman very highly. But the first time I saw it I found it to be very entertaining. On subsequent viewings it has my opinion of it has diminished.

The comment about the Asian lads not knowing who he was has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of the quality of the film. I was responding to someone who thought that the superhero Ironman was far more boring that the alterego Tony Stark. As far as I can see there is no alterego. The only time when a difference between the two might have arisen (though no difference did arise) was when he took down the Asian war mongers.

Yes, I don't rate Ironman very highly. But the first time I saw it I found it to be very entertaining. On subsequent viewings it has my opinion of it has diminished.

The comment about the Asian lads not knowing who he was has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of the quality of the film. I was responding to someone who thought that the superhero Ironman was far more boring that the alterego Tony Stark. As far as I can see there is no alterego. The only time when a difference between the two might have arisen (though no difference did arise) was when he took down the Asian war mongers.

quote:

What did you want? Black + white? Subtitles? 1000 yd stares?

Really?

Well, maybe I had the sarcasm-button deployed there. My bad. And I'm pleased u enjoyed the film, on first viewing at least. Thing is, who says any superhero must have a profoundly different persona from his 'normal' one? It seemed the film played on that dichotomy. And we kinda knew that Tony's ego wouldn't allow the actions of Ironman to overshadow his own standing in the public eye. But that's how it should be. I kinda liked that. ''I AM Ironman'' etc. I think I know what you mean. I just wanted to stick my tuppence-worth in

ps- and yes, you're right, the other poster missed the point by saying Tony was less boring than Ironman. My comments were directed that way too.

_____________________________

Yeah, that's real fine expensive gear you brought out here, Mr. Hooper.'Course I don't know what that bastard shark's gonna do with it-might eat it I suppose. Seen one eat a rockin' chair one time. Hey chieffy, next time you just ask me which line to pull

I've had a really good run of trips to the cinema since my Anna Karenina and Sarmara double bill in early September. Killing Them Softly, Looper, Premium Rush, Ruby Sparks, Skyfall, Argo, The Sapphires, Beasts of the Southern Wild, and others that I can't currently remember. I'm not saying they were all great, but even Premium Rush - the film listed that I enjoyed the least - had stuff in it that I liked a lot. Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the only film I've watched on the small screen in that time and that was superb also.

I've tried to pretend that this streak has carried on longer than it actually has. Stitches was [expletive deleted] but Ross Noble was good in it. Paranorman was dull but there was a moment near the beginning - when he's walking to school - when I thought I was in for a classic. What Richard Did is one of the best crafted Irish films I've seen which somewhat makes up for it being only mildly interesting.

That streak is dead now. The Master is the dullest experience I've had at the cinema in a long time.

But it went down in glory. My last trip was a double bill. I missed the morning showing of Argo and passed the time until the next showing by seeing The Sapphires. The best double bill I've ever done. Argo is great and lived up to expectations. The Sapphires, despite many flaws, is the most entertaining film I've seen this year. I laughed the whole way through it and the music is excellent.

Andrew Garfield was miscast as Peter Parker/Spider man and the film was not as good as the Raimi original.

I enjoyed the films equally, but I thought Garfield was a better PP than Maguire.

@Cool Breese I wholeheartedly disagree. I thought Garfield was a far,far better fit for Peter Parker than that of Maguire,who I thought was just to weedy and slightly creepy.

Overall I thought the film was very good. The performances were great though Sally Field (May Parker) looked like she was going to break into tears in every scene she appeared in. Good action set-pieces to.

For the muscle for which Maguire put on I think he did a commendable job but I never felt he fitted the role of Peter Parker. Garfield on the other hand fits Peter Parker perfectly imo,as do the general cast of Amazing Spiderman.

Andrew Garfield was miscast as Peter Parker/Spider man and the film was not as good as the Raimi original.

I enjoyed the films equally, but I thought Garfield was a better PP than Maguire.

@Cool Breese I wholeheartedly disagree. I thought Garfield was a far,far better fit for Peter Parker than that of Maguire,who I thought was just to weedy and slightly creepy.

Overall I thought the film was very good. The performances were great though Sally Field (May Parker) looked like she was going to break into tears in every scene she appeared in. Good action set-pieces to.

Garfield was definitely a better Parker, but the Raimi films are better.

Its hard to make a total judgement at the moment due to the fact that Garfields Spidey franchise is still in it infancy. But I did enjoy Amazing Spiderman compared to the first in Raimis Spiderman franchise and I do feel the Amazing Spiderman potential could grow to be the better than the first two Raimi directed works (number 3 does not exist)